Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-01-28
THE STATE NOT LIABLE.
The Supreme Court Again Decides Against
Green & Trainor and Others.

The Supreme Court Again Decides A gainst
Green Trainor and Others.
The Supreme Court Commissioners have
written the following decision, and the
Court has Endorsed it, in the case of Green
& Trainor VS.. The State of California
wherein damages were sought to be recov-
cred for injury done to the lands of plant
ifs above the town of Washington, in
consequence of the changing of the outlet
of the American river by the Levee Com
missioners of the city of Sacramento in
1862, by authority of the Legislature. The
Court has also decided the case of VIM. B.
Todhunter VS.. The State in q like manner:
This cause was decided by Department One of
this Court in an opinion filed July /, 1856, af-
firming the judgment of the Court below. (XI
Pac. Rep, co., A rehearing in bank was there
after ordered, and the case again comes under
review.
commencement of this action by plaintiffs
against the State, simply empowered them to
bring suit, and to make the defendant a proper
party thereto. 1t did not create for them a
cause OF action or waive on the part of defend
ant any defense which it had to such action.
The State submitted itself to the jurisdiction of
the Court, subject to its right to interpose any
defense which as a sovereign State IL might
lawfully urge to the action when instituted.
The contention that the Act of March r. 1885
statutes 1885, p. 10T, amounts to legislative
concession of the liability of the State is not
supported by sound reasons. Were the State to
pass a general law permitting all persons at will
to institute suits against it, surely it would not
be contended that such an Act conceded the
existence of cause of action in favor of all per-
sons bringing suits
Ordinarily and in theory a sovereign State Is
presumed 10 be ready and willing to do justice
to the citizen, without the necessity of invoking
the assistance of the judicial arm, but in ex-
ceptional and intricate cases the legislative de-
partment finds itself inadequate to balancing
and adjusting claims depending upon the solu-
ton of abstruSe questions OF law.
In such cases il is eminently proper that the
question of legal obligation and the measure of
damages be submitted for adjustment to that de-
partment OF the Government whose peculiar
province it is to investigate and determine ques-
lions of like character.
How such submission to the Courts can be
construed into a recognition of the existence of
q cause of action we cannot comprehend.
1t may be the Legislature could, in proper
case, determine the liability of the State, and
then refer the question of the amount of COM
pensatiOn to the Courts, If it saw fit to do so.
But in the present case it has not pursued that
course.
The language of the statute does not bear any
such construction. We quote If it appears
upon the trial of any of said actions that dam
age has been done to the plaintiff by any act for
which the State is legally LIABLE etc.
To hold that this expression of legislative in
tent is to be construed admitting right to
recover is to beg the question and do violence
to the statute.
By authorizing the plaintiffs to bring suits
against the State, the Legislature simply re-
manded them to the Courts for determination
of their rights, and no argument in favor of the
liability Of the State can be drawn therefrom
which may not with equal force be urged in
favor of any plaintiff against the defendant
whom he is authorized to sue at law.
2. The whole question of the right of plain
tiffs to recover was necessarily involved in the
determination of Green VS. Swift, AZ Cal. $50.
pressed by Justice McKinstry in the former de-
cision of this cause, are OF opinion the
judgment heretoore rendered affirming the
the Judgment of the Court herein. SEARIs, c.
We concur: FooTR, c.
BELCHER, c. C.
For the reasons given in the foregoing
opinion the Judgment is affirmed.